Tag: freedom

I was discussing with my brother the new law in Missouri that bans strip clubs from being located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks or homes. My brother posed the question, “Why aren’t there any laws banning churches within a thousand feet of a strip club?”

I was embarrassed I hadn’t thought to ask the same question myself. In assessing any legislation, it’s a good rule to ask how would this law work if the roles were reversed. Evidently I need to remind myself to ask the question more often.

My response at the time was, “Strip clubs aren’t as popular as churches, and that’s how laws like that get passed.” I failed to consider what would happen if the majority view changed–what would happen if someday strip clubs become more popular than churches?

These types of zoning laws are the modern day version of segregation of what the majority finds morally repugnant. The laws are akin to the early colonies laws which fined, banished, and imprisoned those who did not follow the religious tenants of the colony.

The more I thought about it, the more I began to see more of these domes and bubbles of moral purity.

College campus bans which have included military recruiters, medical marijuana, hate speech, and credit card offers.

The zoning bubbles are all around us and, the bans are rarely questioned for having the ability to ban a legal activity from within ones eyesight. As an individual I do not have the right to ban what I find offensive or fear from my field of vision or near to my home, so why should some groups have this right?

I can understand a parents desire to protect their children from dangerous influences, as in banning the Jonas Brothers and or Britney Spears concerts from within 10,000 feet of their children, if simply to protect children from crappy music. As individuals, we do not have the right to ban what we find offensive, because an individual’s rights ends where another rights begins.

The group for the liberty minded/libertarian/non-authoritarians to fear the most is not among smokers, gun-owners, sex offenders, drug addicts or even racists. Underlying all these laws is the same tyrannical group–the majority. They’re the ones you’ve got to watch out for.

I’m not going to defend Rand Paul, I’m just not gonna. If you think I’m going to do something about his civil rights and that whole thing, I’m just not gonna do that. You’re not gonna get me with some racist tag.

Speaking out for freedom will definitely get you tagged with the worst labels available. You will get tagged as being in favor of abhorrent behaviors and the part about the right to be abhorrent ending where another’s rights begin will be ignored.

In online gaming, it’s a badge of honor to be called a cheater or child molester or be accused of incestuous behavior. If you’ve been tagged with any of these labels, you know you played well; the best players are called the worst things.

Badges of honor for the liberty minded include being described as immoral, racist, selfish, drug abuser, hatirot, teabagger, godless, and Nazi. If you’ve been labeled with any of these for speaking out for freedom, you are probably one of my heroes and a benefit to all who come into contact with you.

If you are going to be damned, considered it a badge of honor to be damned for being pro freedom.

This article caught my attention because it good example why not everyone is a fan of government. Several examples show common traits of bad government: discrimination, encroachment on personal freedom, behavior modification, hypocrisy, and the difficulty of getting rid of laws.

A law banning women from wearing trousers in Paris may finally be lifted more than two centuries after first being enforced.

Discriminates against women, check.

The curious rule was first introduced in late 1799 by Paris’ police chief, and stipulated than any Parisienne wishing to “dress like a man” must seek special permission from the city’s main police station.

There are those who will say it was a law for the times, and since we don’t know what things were like back then, we shouldn’t judge. It’s an encroachment on personal freedom regardless of the century. They would not have passed the law if there weren’t some women wearing trousers at the time.

But a group of ten French MPs has now submitted a draft bill to parliament to remove the law, which has survived repeated attempts to repeal it.

In 1892, it was slightly relaxed thanks to an amendment which said trousers were permitted “as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse.”

Then in 1909, the decree was further watered down when an extra clause was added to allow women in trousers on condition they were “on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars.”

Spell out when its appropriate to wear trousers–behavior modification, check.

In 1969, amid a global movement towards gender equality, the Paris council asked the city’s police chief to bin the decree. His response was: “It is unwise to change texts which foreseen or unforeseen variations in fashion can return to the fore.”

Difficult to get rid of a bad law once it’s on the books, check.

Given that trousers are compulsory for Parisian policewomen, they are, in theory, all breaking the law.

I’m sure no policewomen in Paris has been charged with violating this law. Here is government hypocrisy of not following laws they are supposed to enforce.

Last by not least is the failure to learn from history. France is considering banning the burqa. While France is trying to shed one discriminatory encroachment on personal freedom, it’s trying to add an almost identical one.

Compare the trouser law in France to laws in the US. Replace the word “trouser” with any of the following: motorcycle helmet, recreational drug, gun, seatbelt, or pornography. US laws have the same underlying dynamics and flaws.

Until the US government follows its own rules and removes discriminatory laws which invade personal liberty and seek to modify behavior, there is no reason to cheer for the government.

Political debate today seems to be centered around discussions of utopianism.

The ideals or principles of a utopian; idealistic and impractical social theory.

Just about any issue of the day turns into a complete debate about political or economic systems. The debates usually run along the lines of “that is a theory straight from political system X, it won’t solve problem Y, but political system Z can fix this problem.” The rebuttal runs along the lines of “we all know political system Z has been a complete failure, and has been rejected by every thinking person.”

The part consistently left out in the utopia debate is all political systems have trade offs. Each person in the debate has done their own cost-benefit analysis of political systems and has chosen one. There are a host of factors that play into the deciding which political or economic system a person believes will work best.

It’s a delusion that there is a political or economic panacea for all of life’s imperfections. Unfortunately, the popular belief “if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything” is not true. You have to believe a goal is possible in order to achieve a goal; but the reverse is not true–believing something is possible doesn’t make it possible.

Pardon the sarcasm to further the point–if I put my mind to it, I will wipe out poverty this morning, end all all wars this afternoon and if I still have enough energy left, I’ll fix stupid before going to bed. If you put your mind to it you can accomplish solvable problems, but believing every problem can be solved in your lifetime is a bit grandiose.

Putting utopianism arguments aside, I’m in favor of limited government and as much freedom as possible, but I don’t believe it will solve all of life’s problems. It’s not reasonable to expect freedom will solve all problems. However, the cost-benefit analysis I’ve done is tells me the perils of living as free as possible scare me less than any alternative. Someone else put it much better:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. – Thomas Jefferson

I know its not perfect, but I’d rather try my hand at my own flawed micro-utopia rather than trusting others to create a utopia for me.

The eye-opening part in the video is when it shows how the U.S. Justice department sued schools which allowed students to use the Kindle reading device, because the Kindle discriminates against students who are blind. The show gives examples of restrictions put on high achievers and special rules for people with disabilities to bring about equal opportunity.

Towards the end, Chandler Tuttle says,“Freedom is not just some theoretical means to an end; it’s an end unto itself. Freedom isn’t a strategy, it’s a goal.”I’m glad this was pointed out because in most political discussions, freedom isn’t brought up as something tangible and having real value. Liberty usually takes a backseat to national security, and often is a secondary issue in less pressing matters because it doesn’t have physical properties. When this concept is brought up, the people defending freedom are usually labeled as amoral, self-serving bastards for valuing freedom over fairness.

Is it fair that some people are blind? As long as no other person caused them to go blind, yes, it is fair. Contrary to popular belief, life is fair. Life doesn’t choose one person over another, and as long as there isn’t someone deciding who is blind or tall or short or blue eyed, life is fair. The luck of the draw applies equally and without bias. It takes a conscious decision to be unfair, such as when a government puts restrictions on some and gives advantages to others.

Fairness means an absence of bias. There aren’t any people free of bias, so any system with people deciding fairness will undoubtedly be unfair. When people are free to do whatever they want with their lives and don’t interfere with someone else’s freedom, what remains are the natural rules of life, and life is fair. The freedom vs. fairness argument is a false dilemma, because in reality freedom equals fairness.

How often have you heard people complain about religion in education, or business in politics? Do complaints about government being too involved in your personal life, or the media having too much influence over politics, sound familiar? It is because many of the problems faced today are caused by permitting or even demanding these institutions exert control over one another.

Here are what I consider to be the biggest institutions of society:

Religion – Education – Business – Government – Families – Media

The media is a mess with their entanglement with political parties. Schools have lost the focus of teaching and are a battleground for theology and politics. The lines between business and government are getting blurrier each day. Science has been rocked by the scandals of political influence. Even the definitions of marriage and family are being defined by the courts and voters.

Please take a moment to consider smaller connections between these groups as the path to follow. The old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups commercial with the line, “You got peanut butter in my chocolate? Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter!” ended with a delicious treat. When this same event occurs in society, we often end up with something that tastes nasty.

A sure way for things to get messed up is when any of the major institutions exert too much influence over any of the others. Each institution works fine by itself, when focused on its own area of expertise. It’s when these groups blend and mesh together that society goes haywire. They each perform best when they aren’t interfering or interfered by other institutions.

The economy is a mess, and much of the mess can be attributed to the government/big bank entwinement. Both exert too much influence over one another. The banks shouldn’t be coming to the government for loans, and the government shouldn’t be telling the banks to whom or how to loan money. Each side claims to have been seduced by the other. Wouldn’t we be better off if the two had never slept together in the first place?

The news media is another mess. There isn’t a whole lot of news covered in the news, but there is a plethora of political discussion. I’ve watched Mike Huckabee on Fox News–a combination of religion, politics and media. Being a pastor is a good thing; governors provide good public service, and a journalist discussing political issues is an important service. But these are three distinct positions. The flip side of Huckabee is Al Gore: Vice President, filmmaker and author, and environmental preacher. Separately each can be beneficial, but the resulting mixture of religion, politics, business, and media muddies the water, providing less news and more polarized viewpoints.

Some of the problems facing education can attributed to the distractions caused by external influences. Should schools be involved in leading prayers or used to teach tolerance? Schools are there to educate children with the tools they’ll need to survive as adults, and not to change the shape of the next generation’s society. They shouldn’t be used to install patriotism or environmentalism because that’s not their role.

The list goes on and on how each group causes problems for the others. This isn’t a left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative problem; it’s a problem with our society as a whole not enforcing boundaries. Each institution resents it when the other institutions cross the boundaries, but unfortunately the resentment they feel towards external influences doesn’t stop them trying to manipulate other groups.

The principle of I can’t be free unless everyone is free needs to be applied here. For each group to be free to achieve their goals, they must be willing to give up the influence they exert on each other. They have to be willing to clean their corner of society instead of trying to clean up society as a whole.

How often have you heard people complain about religion in education, or business in politics? Do complaints about government being too involved in your personal life, or the media having too much influence over politics, sound familiar? It is because many of the problems faced today are caused by permitting or even demanding these institutions exert control over one another.

Here are what I consider to be the biggest institutions of society:

Religion – Education – Business – Government – Families – Media

The media is a mess with their entanglement with political parties. Schools have lost the focus of teaching and are a battleground for theology and politics. The lines between business and government are getting blurrier each day. Science has been rocked by the scandals of political influence. Even the definitions of marriage and family are being defined by the courts and voters.

Please take a moment to consider smaller connections between these groups as the path to follow. The old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups commercial with the line, “You got peanut butter in my chocolate? Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter!” ended with a delicious treat. When this same event occurs in society, we often end up with something that tastes nasty.

A sure way for things to get messed up is when any of the major institutions exert too much influence over any of the others. Each institution works fine by itself, when focused on its own area of expertise. It’s when these groups blend and mesh together that society goes haywire. They each perform best when they aren’t interfering or interfered by other institutions.

The economy is a mess, and much of the mess can be attributed to the government/big bank entwinement. Both exert too much influence over one another. The banks shouldn’t be coming to the government for loans, and the government shouldn’t be telling the banks to whom or how to loan money. Each side claims to have been seduced by the other. Wouldn’t we be better off if the two had never slept together in the first place?

The news media is another mess. There isn’t a whole lot of news covered in the news, but there is a plethora of political discussion. I’ve watched Mike Huckabee on Fox News–a combination of religion, politics and media. Being a pastor is a good thing; governors provide good public service, and a journalist discussing political issues is an important service. But these are three distinct positions. The flip side of Huckabee is Al Gore: Vice President, filmmaker and author, and environmental preacher. Separately each can be beneficial, but the resulting mixture of religion, politics, business, and media muddies the water, providing less news and more polarized viewpoints.

Some of the problems facing education can attributed to the distractions caused by external influences. Should schools be involved in leading prayers or used to teach tolerance? Schools are there to educate children with the tools they’ll need to survive as adults, and not to change the shape of the next generation’s society. They shouldn’t be used to install patriotism or environmentalism because that’s not their role.

The list goes on and on how each group causes problems for the others. This isn’t a left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative problem; it’s a problem with our society as a whole not enforcing boundaries. Each institution resents it when the other institutions cross the boundaries, but unfortunately the resentment they feel towards external influences doesn’t stop them trying to manipulate other groups.

The principle of I can’t be free unless everyone is free needs to be applied here. For each group to be free to achieve their goals, they must be willing to give up the influence they exert on each other. They have to be willing to clean their corner of society instead of trying to clean up society as a whole.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A German couple who fled to Tennessee so they could homeschool their children have been granted political asylum by a U.S. immigration judge.

Here is another example of what life might be like living in an advanced, modern democracy. In the modern democracy of tomorrow, we won’t have to worry about the best way to raise children; there will be a department to handle those difficult decisions for parents.

The guilt parents sometimes feel because their children didn’t turn out as they had hoped will be gone. There will be no reason to take responsibility for a child’s behavior, since a state agency will have already made sure your child is well-adjusted. Parents will be mercifully spared from ungrateful children, because children will have nothing to be grateful for.

What could possibly motivate people to flee from a life lived under the worlds oldest universal health care system? Why would anyone give up all the wonderful security of Germany’s advanced modern democracy?

Its that old-fashioned, outdated notion called freedom raising its ugly head again. The sooner the United States does away with outmoded concepts of liberty, the sooner we can move on to become an advanced modern democracy– just like Germany.

If you heard someone say, “Drinking Pepsi made me fat, so I’m switching to Coke,” you’d think they were joking, or ignorant of the fact there isn’t much difference between the two. Maybe this person just hasn’t heard about drinking water, tea or cappuccino? Perhaps they have a short memory, and forgot they put on weight when they used to drink Coke?

Much of the debate on political blogs runs along these same lines. The Republicans sure made a mess of things, so vote for the Democrats; the Democrats are screwing up worse than the Republicans, so vote Republican. The blogs sometimes say its the voters’ fault for not voting for the good candidates, but that’s like saying you got fat by picking the wrong can of Pepsi.

Democrats and Republicans keep telling us they have changed the formula in their products. They tell us this election is different. “We are now New Coke, and New Coke tastes much better than Pepsi or old Coke.” Then it turns out the formula hasn’t changed, and they’ve only put a new label or logo on the bottle.

As screwed up as things are right now, why do people insist on choosing between two obviously faulty products? I’m disappointed in America because there hasn’t been a third and fourth party emerge. How screwed up do things have to get before other political parties gain popularity when there is clearly a market for other brands of politics?

I like the Libertarian party, but things are so far removed from the ideas of limited governing that having Libertarians in office sounds dangerous to most. I’m not opposed to a radical change from the present situation, but to the general public, Libertarian views seem more radical than changes proposed by the far left.

I’d settle for something simpler at this point–something along the lines of a growing freedom party. Not a party to revolutionize or change everything at once, just a very simple philosophy of looking for ways to grow freedom. Any new or proposed change to legislation would be held up to the simple question: Will this lead to more or less freedom?

No hidden agenda with being pro-liberty; it would be a clear goal to restore freedom one baby step at a time. No overzealous unrealistic promises of changing the political landscape required; instead, just a very simple promise of increasing liberty when the opportunity presents itself.

It’s sad to be hoping for a party that in essence would be defending and upholding the Constitution, but that sums up just how far away from liberty we are.

Health care reform was sold with the argument that all Americans had the right to health care. How can something you are forced to do be considered a right? Call me mad, call me crazy, but I thought a right was something you could choose to do, or not do.

Imagine –

You were required to speak out.

You were forced to prove you are a member of a religious organization.

You were mandated to publish something.

You must own a weapon to defend yourself.

You had to peaceably assemble a certain amount of times each year.

Imagine if you didn’t do any of the above, you had to pay a 750 dollar fine for not exercising each of these rights.

This is the logic behind the health care reform bill: you have the right to health care insurance, and if you choose not to exercise this new right, you’ll pay a heavy penalty.

To sum it up, we are are being sold a lie that individual rights are an old-fashioned notion. A negative campaign is being waged that says America needs to change and be more like modern advanced countries that believe society as a whole has rights that supersede individual rights. Putting individual liberties first is only old-fashioned to Americans, because the rest of the world is still catching up with the concept. Ignoring individual rights is an age-old concept and that can hardly be described as modern or advanced.

Let me point out some less advertised features of these advanced countries American has been compared to. These are examples of what happens in countries where individual rights are placed behind society rights:

Canada – The Customs and Revenue Agency is responsible for determining which books, videos, comics, and other material should be allowed into the country.

These countries should be examples of what not to do; they are example of the dangers of putting individual rights at the back of bus. Don’t look to them for examples on how to run America, because changing the definition of rights is not progress, it’s not advanced, and it is not a bright future.